Church Wars: The Battle of Catholicism and Protestantism in England

        The 17^th century was a tumultuous time for England, as for the rest of Europe. Political squabbles, economic depravity, and social strife were rampant, made all the worse by the ongoing battle for power between the Roman Catholic church and the fledgling Protestant sects. Or was it the other way around? Did the clash between the Protestants and Catholics fuel the already dilapidated socioeconomic climate, or was the religious row the catalyst of the whole situation?

        England's Glorious Revolution ended the absolute monarchy in place, and instead replaced it with a "constitutional monarchy", handing over much of the control of England to Parliament. Driven by the fear of what a Catholic monarch may attempt, James II was cast out, being replaced by his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. Despite the Revolution being relatively bloodless, with only Scotland and Ireland putting up resistance, it's impact on British society was considerable, gradually bringing long lasting changes. Even after William and Mary died with no heir, Parliament was able to place Anne – another of James II's Protestant daughters – on the throne. But this fear of a resurgence of "popery" was not held by Parliament alone: it was widespread throughout the kingdom. This fear went beyond hatred and ventured into the realm of paranoia, as the majority of the people of England, many of whom were Protestant since birth, believed that Catholics were systematically plotting the downfall of both the Anglican Church and English state. This intricate conspiracy theory claimed that the Pope would then establish Catholic-led tyranny, not unlike the absolute monarchy in France, reducing England to a mere puppet state. It is interesting to note, however, that this conspiracy theory was given some measure of credibility, due to the fact that there actually was some real Catholic subterfuge, the most notable of which was Guy Fawkes' 1605 Gunpowder Plot. (Vallance, 2011)

         Thus, despite James' Catholic descendents attempting to stir a rebellion that would carry them out of exile in France and back to the English throne, it would never happen, as public support was suppressed by the paranoia about Catholics. In fact, the people and Parliament thought it better to give the crown to the Germans than to the French. That is when King George I entered the scene: a Stuart by blood, German by culture, and ruler of Hanover, but the next Protestant with claim to the English Crown. However, neither George I or his son, George II, were fluent in English, understood or cared much about England, and they never presided over the Cabinet meetings. (Damerow, 2011) Because of this, Sir Robert Walpole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, became the first Prime Minister, holding this position from 1721 to 1742. Answering both to the king and to a majority in the House of Commons, Walpole became the de facto leader of the nation, and the Crown began its descent into being a mere figurehead; however, when Sir Robert's parliamentary majority was lost, he proceeded to resign from his post, despite still having the support of the king. By doing so, he provided a model for all Prime Ministers after him, and set a precedent for all future leaders of this fundamentally different England. (Damerow, 2011)

 

          During all of this, mass exploration was going on as well. The ever present threat of France was multiplied when they sent Jacques Cartier to the New World, followed by René-Robert-Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, among others. To the English mind, the Catholic French could not go unopposed, so in 1585, the English established an ultimately unsuccessful settlement on Roanoke Island. However, they made more attempts shortly thereafter, with settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth. Finally, in March of 1630, roughly 900 Puritans sailed to the New World and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Other colonies were rapidly founded in succession: Maryland, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. (Kreis, 2009) These colonies were well established, with governments approved and placed by the Crown when the Glorious Revolution rattled the home country. One of the governors in Colonies was a man by the name of Sir Edmund Andros, a heavily pro-Anglican authoritarian man, and one despised by most of the largely Puritan population. Tensions were high in the colonies, between Indian raids and Andros' own harsh policies and crackdowns, when word of the Glorious Revolution spread to America. (Alchin, 2012) In April of 1698, the Boston colonists revolted against the tyranny of Andros, descending on the city and arresting government officials and other Anglicans. Former colonial governor Simon Bradstreet led what the British called a "mob", but was closer to an organized militia, to the steps of Fort Mary, where Andros had barricaded himself. Bradstreet served up the terms of surrender, which Andros refused, and instead attempted to flee to the Rose, the last of the Royal Navy presence near Boston at the time. However, the boat sent from the Rose was intercepted by militia, and Andros was forced back to negotiations. He was taken into captivity, and meanwhile, in New York, Lieutenant Governor Francis Nicholson was toppled by Jacob Leisler's New York militia, something that has come to be called Leisler's Rebellion. New York would be governed by Leisler until 1691, when he was arrested and put to death by an army led by the provincial governor, newly-appointed by the Crown. Andros was ultimately permitted to leave to England, but by then, his Dominion of New England had practically come to an end, and the colonies making up the Dominion reverting back to their prior styles of government. As Linda Alchin wrote that the "rebellion the American colonies, which although were short lived, can be seen as precursors to the American Revolution." (2012)

         Overall, the Glorious Revolution was a nearly bloodless insurrection that this author would assert was caused by the tensions between Protestants and Catholics. It was supplemented by the socioeconomic and political strife rampant at the time, and was felt all throughout the farthest reaches of the fledgling empire. The impact in the American Colonies was both a symbol and a forerunner of what was to come, but staved off the inevitable revolution for 88 more years.

References

Alchin, L. (2012, March 1). Land of the Brave: Glorious Revolution of 1688. Retrieved from http://www.landofthebrave.info/glorious-revolution.htm

Damerow, H. (2011, July 12). Glorious Revolution. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/glorious_revolution.htm

Kreis, S. (2009, August 4). Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715. Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html

Vallance, E. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Glorious Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml

From Darkness to Light: The Fall of England's Feudal Economy

        From the 11^th century onward, feudalism had a stranglehold on the island kingdom of England. As the norm of the land for hundreds of years, it seemed there was no foreseeable end to it, until the middle of the 14^th century. As the adage goes, things had to get worse to get better, and after a series of calamities, England faced the downfall of feudalism and a century of prosperity. This begs the question, however, of why the catastrophes helped? What was so terrible that it changed the very foundation of the government, or did the power really shift much at all? And what effect did these events have on the common man?

         Feudalism in England was officially introduced in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, though elements of it had been present in feudalism gained prominence in the 9^th century. It was a harsh system, with a rigid class-based structure that allowed for little to no upward mobility. If one was born into serfdom, there was next to no opportunities to advance, being stuck in a state that was often considered worse than slavery. Lords, barons, or other nobility were the only major landholders, with life being entirely dependent on the success of the lord's manor. This way of life began to crumble, however, after the first few survivors of the Crusades returned. These warriors would regale their fellow townspeople with tales of far off lands and vast riches, and would eventually inspire trade with faraway territories. After the Crusades, Venice, Genoa, and other cities along the Mediterranean took a central role in trade, profiting from dealing in Oriental goods, the growing significance of banking and, after the fall of their chief competition – the Byzantine Empire – their newfound monopoly. (Felsch, 2013) This expansion of trade trickled its way up to northern Europe, and by the 15^th century, had permeated the economy of England.

        The population of England had been falling since the 14^th century, however, and many historians believe it continued to fall until 1450-70. (Muhlberger, 2003) A major part of this decline was due to something known as the Black Death, lasting roughly from 1347-1351, though remnants could be found well into the 1400's. This was not the only crisis, but was the one that was engrained in legend. However, with a declining population, basic foodstuffs – especially grain, normally the main source of income for farmers – were not in high demand anymore, and consequently drove prices, and ultimately the farmers' own rent, down to prices never before seen. (Knox, 2013) Manual labor, on the other hand, was at an all-time high in demand. Wages began to rise, but many local governments attempted to pass laws restricting them, though such legislation was ineffective. Prices and land both dropped in price during this rise in wages, allowing much of the peasantry to create what one might consider a precursor to the middle class, whose rights could be defended by the king's justice. If they were able to labor, they could eat rather well, thanks to the new, higher wages earned. (Muhlberger, 2003)

         However, this did not necessarily mean the decline of the landlords. When many serfs and servants became freed tenants, some nobles who were set in their ways attempted the aforementioned legislation. Others, however, were more skilled at adaptation, and decided to turn their efforts to the production of material exports like wool. By doing so, they entered into an industry that was required less labor, and was vastly more profitable, but required new techniques to be effective. Enter fenced enclosures, pastures, and pens, something that had only been seen in limited aspects until now. Barons, lords, and landowners would convert once-plowed pastures of newly vacant villages and manors were fenced in and allowed to grow, to be utilized for sheep runs. (Muhlberger, 2003) Prior to the mid-14^th century, the majority of England's wool was sold to France, Italy, and the Netherlands, where it was converted into usable cloth in the larger, industrialized cities. As the century progressed, taxes on the export of raw wool – imposed to support England's war effort – encouraged English landlords to send their goods to the local manufacturing regions, helping it to grow rapidly. (Felsch, 2013)

           Unfortunately, it was this very adaptation that spelled the downfall of the rising middle class, as the economic boom was not to last. Serfs had enjoyed protection of tenure with their lord. When 15^th century servants gained their personal freedom, that security was retracted, and suddenly, serfs who had been dependent on their lord for all of their sustenance were on their own virtually overnight. Most peasants merely had a lease on the land they occupied. Leases used a leasehold, not unlike modern lease agreements. The leaseholds would end at a set time, at which point the landlord could renew it, modify it, or take the land back outright. Because of this, the newly-freed leaseholders had no long-term security. As the fifteenth century progressed, leaseholders were not terribly insecure because property was once again copious. Landlords lost  what influence they had, but by the 16th century, a growing population again made available property scant. (Knox, 2013)(Muhlberger, 2003)

          Overall, the economics of 1400-1500 England was the equivalent of a medieval roller coaster. The local populace was thrown about like a ragdoll at times, but those who were able to adapt and overcome weathered the storm best, regardless of serf, free peasant, or nobleman. Echoes of capitalism were seen, with the constant rise and fall of supply and demand; and it was here, in the wake of the Black Death and uncertain economic times, the people got a taste of their collective power.

References

Felsch, M., Astor, E., & Southard, Ü. (2013). Diercke International Atlas - Trade and economy in the 15th century. Retrieved from http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&stichwort=slave&fs=1

Knox, S. (2013). European economy in the Age of the Reformation. Retrieved from http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/reformation/economics/overview.shtml

Muhlberger, S. (2003). ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. Retrieved from http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/muhlberger/15c_economy.htmlc

Spanning Generations: The Hundred Years' War

       Few conflicts in this world's troubled history have lasted as long as the war between England and France known as The Hundred Years' War. A bloody ping pong match between ruling families, the body count would reach epic proportions for just a few extra yards of land, just to be lost again with the same – or higher – loss of life. What started the constant clash? Was it a disagreement over borders, or plain and simple greed? Or was there something more nefarious at work, an underlying power play to unite all the major nations of Europe under one house to begin an empire?

       The Hundred Years' War officially lasted from 1337 until 1453, consisting primarily of on-again, off-again sieges, raids, and sea battles between England and France. But to fully understand why King Philip VI of France instigated the fighting, one must look further back, to the days of William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy. In 1066, when William shook off the title of "Bastard" and donned the mantle of "Conqueror", he united England and northern France for the first time since the Roman Empire. His descendent, Henry II, expanded the lands owned by England to proportions unseen before that time, though his successors found this expansion too great and complicated to control. This lack of control led to a slow erosion, until Edward III's reign, when England's holdings in France consisted of only Gascony and Ponthieu. Technically, these holdings were still under French rule, thus making the King of England a vassal of the King of France, at least in regard to the territories held on mainland Europe. Then, in 1328, just one year after Edward's ascension to the English throne, Charles IV of France died, with no heir, or even a brother to pass the crown to. His sister, however, happened to be the mother of Edward III, and it was by this lineage that Edward made a claim to the French throne as well. (Trueman, 2011) The French people did not share his view, though, and enthroned Phillip – a cousin to the deceased Charles. This move infuriated Edward, but he was virtually powerless to intervene, at least for nearly a decade. In May of 1337, Phillip moved on the English-controlled duchy of Aquitaine, and Edward jumped at the opportunity for war – a politically astute war, where he would not be viewed as the aggressor by neighboring kingdoms. However, merely appearing as the defender was not enough for King Edward, and he responded with a claim to the French throne, saying that he was the next legitimate heir to Charles IV, not Phillip.

        Edward's attempts to raise an army to challenge King Phillip were fruitful, for the most part, as there was no shortage of adventurous men willing to risk life and limb for king and country. Although, Edward shrewdly sweetened the deal by allowing volunteers to bring any French plunder they could carry home to England, which would often make even the poorest man feel as rich as the king himself. There were some, however, who were more concerned about leaving their farms, as the war didn't start heating up until the end of summer and beginning of autumn – right in the middle of the harvest. (Gormley, 2001) The feudal system in place at the time helped alleviate some of this, though, as the king called upon his vassals and feudal lords to draw armies, who would in turn allow individual villages and manors to select their fighting force. Those sent to the king – primarily archers, as most people in England were expected to be proficient with use of the feared English longbow – were paid three pence a day, along with the spoils of war; those left behind were cared for by the community as a whole until their volunteer's return, if he would indeed return.

        Three years into the conflict, Edward began what today would be called a public relations campaign, officially adopting the moniker of 'King of France and the French Royal Arms'. (Keen, 2011) It is still debated to this day if Edward actually thought this was accomplishable, or if it was merely a ruse to garner support, but regardless, it gave him vital leverage and pull in his consequent dealings with King Phillip. He used that title to split France amongst herself, with some French that were more friendly toward the English backing Edward's claim, and pitting those supporters against those of Phillip's. Additionally, the title became a negotiating piece, a bargaining chip as it were, if he were to offer a renunciation of it in return for vast territorial surrenderings, such as the independence of the duchy of  Aquitaine, or even the cession of Anjou and Normandy. (Keen, 2011)

        Edward's army was almost as successful as his political maneuverings for the most part, smashing the French forces all the way south to Castillon and controlling most of the western coast. Battles at Agincourt, Crécy, and Poitiers gave the English a chance to employ a new technique of warfare, combining divisions of longbowmen with units of men-at-arms to devastating effect. But then, in 1429, as the English pushed eastward at the Siege of Orleans, a young peasant girl believed by the French to be divinely blessed rose up against the English. Joan of Arc, leading a relief force, smashed through the English siege and delivered the city from falling, and marked the end of the English advance, having them retreat from all their French holdings, save Calais.

         Depending on the heritage of the historian you ask, Edward III was either the aggressor or defender, with a stark contrast between the two. Ask a Frenchman, and he was a bloodthirsty English king seeking to greedily devour as much land as he could while king; yet to an Englishman, he was a noble defender of English holdings on the mainland, with a perfectly legitimate claim to the French throne. Regardless of thoughts on either king, however, the Hundred Years' War proved to be nothing more than a horrific loss of life, for both sides. Little ground even permanently changed hands, and in the end, it was a poor decision for both parties involved. Yes, greed was a factor, but both Edward and Phillip showed that land they could claim as their own was worth more than the lives of their subjects, and that is nothing to be proud of, regardless of bloodline, pedigree, or perceived divine right.

References

Gormley, L. (2001). eHistory at OSU | Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/hundredyearswar.cfm

Keen, M. (2011, February 17). BBC - History - British History in depth: The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtml

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Hundred Years War. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hundred_years_war.htm

The Bronze Age Cultural Alloy: Minoans and Mycenaeans

      During what is today known as the "Bronze Age", two distinct, vibrant cultures emerged in Greece: the Mycenaean and Minoan. Yet although they were distinct, they were also very similar, and while this might seem like an oxymoron, it is – to this writer's mind – the most accurate way of describing their atypical association.

      The first, and perhaps most obvious, difference was their physical location: the Minoans dwelt on the island of Crete, while the Minoans were inhabitants of the Grecian mainland. Because of this, the Minoans constructed their society around trade and diplomacy by way of the sea. They would trade their own pottery, cloth, and other wares for items like wood, stone, or metals that couldn't normally be found on the island; or in some cases, would present the finest specimens of their wares as gifts to foreign powers such as Egypt. The Mycenaeans also held this philosophy to a degree, and presented the pharaoh of Egypt with ceremonial plaques signifying friendship. (Goessl, 2008)

      One of the most evident differences between the two cultures was their stance on war and the military. The Minoans were blissfully ignorant of their defense, thinking their island was a strong enough fortress from the outside world. The Mycenaeans, on the other hand, were a war-like people, whose kings and nobles depended on their experienced soldiers. It is also interesting to note that these warriors served a dual purpose, being the Mycenaean law enforcement during peacetime. (Goessl, 2008) But Crete was a vital location for trade, and the Mycenaeans saw that, and desired it to be under their control. But it wasn’t until 1500 BC that Minoa was weakened to the point of vulnerability: a volcanic eruption on the island of Crete destroyed much of the Minoan navy, along with many of the sources of their prosperous trade. The Mycenaean king saw this and took his opportunity, mustering his own fighting force and invading Crete, where they had a smashing victory over the waning Minoans. Some historians today speculate that the Mycenaeans only won due to a technological advance available on the mainland, but not Crete: bronze. (Weatherby, 2011) Bronze meant better weapons and armor, and a stronger defense against stone and wood weapons that might have been common at the time. It also meant stronger tools and building materials, which the Mycenaeans are thought to have used to rebuild Minoa after they conquered it.

      After the Minoans fell, the Mycenaeans assumed various elements of Minoan culture, art, and religion, which they resourcefully used to construct their own, similarly remarkable, civilization. One could almost say that the Minoan culture lived on through the warlike Mycenaeans, as it was assimilated so well. Mycenaeans adopted aspects of Minoan religion like the Sacred Knot, sacred horns, figure-of-eight shields, the worship of trees and sacred columns, and "holy ecstatic dances for the Mother Goddess-Nature". (Spirit of Greece, 2005) Along with Minoan art techniques for ceramics and frescos, their religion was adopted and adapted by the Mycenaeans, and ultimately spread by them as well.

      Both of these cultures remained significant to the course of world history, and their impact was felt throughout the Mediterranean. Their trade skills were superb, their craftsmanship was unrivaled, and their military was feared all through the region. However, they were but a foundation for the mighty Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great, but without the Minoans and Mycenaeans, the groundwork for that mighty realm might never had been laid.

References

Goessl, L. (2008, February 7). Political contrasts of Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/847076-political-contrasts-of-minoan-and-mycenaean-civilizations

Spirit of Greece (2005, April 28). MINOANS & MYCENAEANS - The mixture of two civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.spiritofgreece.gr/minoan&mycenaeans.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). Minoan vs. Mycenaean | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/minoan-vs-mycenaean/

Bureaucracy: It's Easier to Fix the Blame Than Fix the Problem

The United States Federal Government is rampant with bureaucracies, and it seems to be growing every day. Many of these agencies and departments have grown into somewhat of a monstrosity, hardly retaining even a shadow of what a bureaucracy should be. However, one small bastion in the midst of the red tape is the Department of Defense. Not to say that the DOD does not have its own share of bureaucratic formalities to bog down efficiency, but it is the best and most clearly-defined of establishments in the federal government today.

The Department of Defense, or DOD, has strict levels of hierarchy. All tasks and missions come from the top, or at least high up, the chain of command, and run downward all the way to the lowliest buck private. Conversely, accountability for that same buck private will run all the way back up, even to the department head, should he do well or fail miserably. The DOD is divided into quite a few sub-departments, including the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous civilian departments. These are the first – and most noticeable – division of labor, with civilians taking up support roles to the military portion, such as managing TRICARE, human resources, and civilian contractors, among other things. The actual subject of defense falls to the aforementioned sub-departments, with their recognizable division of labor via rank: both enlisted – E-1 to E-9 – and officer – O-1 to O-10 – and level of command.

Each department has written rules, some shared across the board, some differing widely. One of these regulations this writer has had personal experience with is the issue of tattoos: the Army allows any number of tattoos anywhere below the collar line, whereas the Air Force regulates visible tattoos, requiring them to be 40% or less of any exposed skin surface. Ironically, the Marine Corps tends to be strictest on tattoos, due in part to the new Commandant of the Marine Corps and his boss, the Chief of Staff of the Navy. Communications are a huge part in the DOD, with each branch of the military having an entire corps devoted to communication. The Defense Information Systems Agency, a civilian sub-agency, is devoted to intercommunication between all facets of the DOD, and assuring it all goes smoothly.

Finally, the last factor of a bureaucracy, impersonality and replaceability. Again, this writer has had persona experience with this, as the standards of conformity in the military are designed to strip most elements of personality and force the subject to conform and mesh with a unit of people. One is reminded every day that they are vital to the mission of their respective department, agency, or unit, yet they can be replaced in a heartbeat, should their performance be unsatisfactory. It is also interesting to note that anyone can be replaced, regardless of clout or political stature, as was the case with General Stanley McChrystal, the Army commander in Afghanistan who was removed from his post after a scathing article in Rolling Stone magazine.

In a nation with rampant bureaucracy run amuck, growing bigger by the day, the Department of Defense is a stronghold in the fray, staying true to its mission and to its original structure, without swelling into a monstrosity, as is seen with copious other agencies and departments within the Federal Government.

References

Department of Defense (2013). About The Department of Defense (DOD). Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/about/

A Global Depression

When the phrase "Great Depression" is used in modern society, images of families in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl, and long lines of people waiting for a bit of food from a soup kitchen are conjured. But something commonly overlooked is the global impact of the Great Depression. Yes, it hit America hard, but the economy of the world had been integrated together in proportions unseen until that time, so when one nation's economy fell, it began a domino effect on the rest of the industrialized nations. But how did Europe handle the Depression?  Were they able to weather the financial storm any better on their side of the pond?

It is relatively accepted that the Great Depression began in America, although the case could be made that the recession leading up to the Depression was started abroad. In the years following World War I, inflation was rampant, especially in Germany, and many European nations looked to America and her seemingly strong economy for help. Essentially the world's banker, America experienced a boom during the 1920's, and life seemed good. The astute observer would note that this was a shallow and false hope, however: farmers, used to overproducing food for the war effort, were faced with plummeting prices and huge loans for their new modern farm equipment as demand lessened and supply rose. Europe began to increase their production capabilities, but in combination with American imports, prices were again driven down, along with profits, making debts of any kind more difficult to repay. But the deeper issue was merely pushed to the background during these Roaring 20's, and coupled with eased reparation payments and new inventions like the radio and automobile, seemed like the United States could be a bastion amidst the financial storm. But it was not to last, as the American economy entered its own recession in April of 1929, culminating in the collapse of the stock market in October 1929. This sent shockwaves throughout the world, as people everywhere had invested in the stock market and uninsured banks and lost their entire life savings virtually overnight.

Officially beginning in the United States, the Great Depression rapidly spread into a worldwide economic crash, with nation after nation collapsing under the weight of its own debts, as the world's economies had been forged into a delicate web between the US and Europe after WWI. Once the American's economy caved in, however, the ripple was felt all across that web, with the nations deepest in debt to the US – namely Great Britain and Germany – feeling the hardest hit. Germany alone saw her unemployment rise harshly in 1929, until unemployment hit 25% by 1932, which equated to roughly 6 million workers. A panic began to spread amongst the politicians of the effected nations as well, with lawmakers passing legislation to attempt to protect their respective nations. They raised existing tariffs, drafted and imposed new ones, and even went so far as to require quotas set on the number of foreign imports, such as with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and by 1932 – when Germany reached 25% unemployment – foreign trade had fallen by nearly 50%. Another foolhardy attempt by the politicians to salvage the American economy was a failed repeal of the McFadden Act of 1927, which – in essence – limited the growth of banks by forcing them to stay in their home state. Ironically, the Canadians, who didn't have this restriction, managed to keep a single bank from going bankrupt, whereas the United States lost over 9,000. (Weatherby, 2012) American banks, terrified of the economic climate and more concerned about their own survival, stopped approving loans in an attempt to keep their own proverbial heads above the water. However, there were a select few economies who were buffered from feeling the full effects of the Depression; the Soviet Union, for example, had cut off nearly all their ties with the western nations, save a few rather insignificant ones. This placed a huge strain in the Russian people during Stalin's rapid industrialization, but it protected them from feeling the same, sobering effects of the Depression.

However, the severing of ties was not a viable option for many countries, and they were forced to find other ways of coping with the Depression. The French and British opted to adopt multi-party systems and radical economic ideas that were unheard of in their pre-War nations, and other nations – like the Italians and Germans – moved into a organized, violent and ruthless system of government, falling into the grasp of Mussolini's Fascists and Hitler's National Socialist Party. These men brutally eradicated the obstacles in the way of their respective nations recovering again, whether or not the opponents were real or figments of their imagination. Japan was another nation brutalized by the Depression, because they were so heavily dependent on their import and export trades, receiving raw materials and fuel in exchange for silk and other items of luxury. By 1931, the value of Japanese exports had plunged to 50%, almost a full year before Europe's exports reached that level, with over 3 million people unemployed. Those factors, when coupled with the droughts and bad harvests, left the majority of the Japanese islands in a state reminiscent of the Oklahoma Dust Bowl.

The Great Depression was quite literally hell on earth. Massive unemployment, governmentally meddling, unseen droughts would all combine to make one of the hardest times to survive in modern history, but before the lessons of the Great Depression could be completely grasped, Europe, Asia and eventually America found themselves involved in yet another global  war that would prove longer and even more destructive than the first.

References

About the Great Depression. (2008, August 27). Department of English, College of LAS, University of Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/about.htm

Pearson-Prentice Hall (1995). Europe and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Western Heritage. Retrieved from http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_kagan_westheritage_8/11/2878/736876.cw/index.html

Rothermund, D. (1996). Read The Global Impact of the Great Depression, 1929-1939 by Dietmar Rothermund. | Questia, Your Online Research Library. Questia, Your Online Research Library. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/read/103606166/the-global-impact-of-the-great-depression-1929-1939

The Great Depression. (n.d.). World History International: World History Essays From Prehistory To The Present. Retrieved from http://history-world.org/great_depression.htm

Weatherby, E. (2011, February 27). Causes of the Great Depression « Pipe N' Slippers. Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/causes-of-the-great-depression/

To the Victor Goes the Spoils: The Formation of the Modern Middle East

The Middle East has always been a hotbed of contention and strife throughout the millennia, with one group or another trying to gain dominance of the region. The Ottoman Empire had been that domineering force for generations, but when they threw in their lot with Germany and their allies during World War I, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. After the Triple Entente won the war, and the League of Nations was formed shortly thereafter, the groundwork was laid for the decadent and plagued nations we recognize today through the "Mandate System".

Before World War I, the Middle East was comprised of small pockets of like-minded people, living in semi-autonomous regions. Granted, they were most likely part of the Ottoman Empire, but they were – for the most part – left to govern themselves. After the fall of the Ottomans, however, the League of Nations was suddenly thrust upon the region. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations granted the authority to the mandate powers, claiming it was to prepare the natives of each region for autonomous self-government. Both the British and French were granted mandates, even though both had been involved in the region long before the Great War, but their victory gave them the much needed opportunity to increase their reach. ("The League of Nations Mandate Provision", n.d.) Using both platforms of the Zionists and Arabs, the British asserted their dominance in the region, despite French protests. Between the Zionist support and the fact that the Her Majesty's Royal Army occupied the entire Fertile Crescent and through to Egypt, English forces merely strong-armed the various other national units in the region, and the main threat to the British – the Russians – had imploded and the Bolsheviks renounced the Russian claim on Constantinople. With the Soviet threat in the region eliminated, the Crown was able to shape the fledgling nation as they thought best.

Their sheer military might in the region gave them the ability to crush any local indigenous resistance, often mixing the iron fist of military might with the silver tongue of diplomacy. The French were more of an irritant than an actual threat, so the British begrudgingly forfeited the Syrian and Lebanese Mandates to their former ally. When France unceremoniously ousted Faisal ibn Abd al Aziz, whom the people had proclaimed as the King of Syra, the British government welcomed him and his entourage fled to British controlled Palestine. However, the local British governor grumbled about the swarm of people that had come along, stating that "they cannot stay here indefinitely."  ("Middle East (region, Asia)", n.d.) They couldn't just oust him as the French did though, so the British elites used their considerable influence to arrange for Faisal's 'election' as king of the newly formed Iraqi state. The British also successfully staved off  the French expansion in the area as well, with the British keeping a hold of the oil rich regions of northern Iraq, along with the historically significant region of Palestine. But when Faisal's brother, Abdullah I ibn Hussein, took the Middle Eastern world by storm, seeking to reclaim his brother's throne and attack the French in Transjordan with his rabble of an army, the British intervened on behalf of the French. The begrudgingly sent a number of officers to the region, to stave off a decline back into sheer anarchy. ("The Middle East After World War One", n.d.)

Once the British firmly established their unquestioned dominance in the region, and the French were resigned to their two holdings, they began to withdraw their military presence. It wasn’t truly by choice, however, as popular support for the overseas military waned drastically. Plagued by budget cuts and newspapers opposing the massive expenditures being amassed by the military, the British Army was reduced to small, scattered units, with the only exception being the standing force guarding the strategically crucial Suez Canal. This was the beginning of the end of English supremacy in the Middle East, and laid the groundwork for the formation of the modern Arab states we find there today. By the early 1920s, a majority of the populace had been agitated to the point of civil unrest against the British, so much so that even the Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq were banding together to resist, forming the Haras al Istiqlal, or "The Guardians of Independence". ("Iraq - WORLD WAR I AND THE BRITISH MANDATE", n.d.) These violent protests, along with the English forces left in the area arresting many of the leaders, forced the British government to rethink their stance of essentially keeping the Middle East as one giant colony or satellite state. However, Egypt was granted her independence in 1922, and it was there that the British experimented with essentially a puppet government to keep their superiority in the region. It was so successful, to an extent, that they later granted Iraq their freedom in 1932 under the same circumstances, but for each case, Britain maintained an efficient control over critical tactical and financial interests. The maintaining of this so-called 'veiled protectorate,' a term coined in the Egyptian case, merely aggravated nationalist dissatisfactions and hatred, but these were written off as posing no immediate threat to the British Empire.

However, with the threats of Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy upon the homeland forced Great Britain to reprioritize her funds and military, and essentially neglected the Middle East upon the outset of WWII, leaving all of her mandates and protectorates to fend for themselves. This, coupled with the ruthless crushing of various uprisings helps to explain the current Middle Easter hatred for all things Western. The greed and inhumanity portrayed by the British and French poisoned entire generations, something that the Western Powers of today are still dealing with.

References

Iraq - WORLD WAR I AND THE BRITISH MANDATE. (n.d.). Country Studies. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://countrystudies.us/iraq/19.htm

Middle East (region, Asia). (n.d.). In Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381192/Middle-East

The League of Nations Mandate Provision. (n.d.). MidEast Web Historical Documents. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm

The Middle East After World War One | The Non-Western World | Big Site of History ©. (n.d.). Big Site of History © | History of Civilization. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://bigsiteofhistory.com/the-middle-east-after-world-war-one-the-non-western-world